Citizens are often frustrated by the apparent ability of the big corporations to dance rings about government tax collection using these methods that are unavailable to smaller businesses and individuals. For example, In the UK in 2010, HMRC waived a potential tax bill of £7bn from Vodafone. David Hartnett, the head of HMRC at the time, even later admitted that he might have made mistakes in some of his actions while settling potential high-yield tax disputes with multinational companies.
Also, Vodafone sold its stake in Verizon Wireless in 2013, to Verizon Communications in the USA. When it came to accounting for taxes, it claimed that a Netherlands Holding company owned the shares sold outside of UK tax jurisdiction and consequently paid no tax. This is all entirely legal, of course, and not a criticism of any corporation doing this, but the net effect of these kinds of deals on smaller businesses and citizens themselves is a bigger tax burden and an inability to compete fairly.
The concept of corporations goes back to Roman times and possibly still further. The basic idea is that a group of people got together to form a venture. Normally with profit-bearing motives. The word ‘corporation’ even comes from the Latin, ‘corpus,’ meaning ‘group of people.’ Part of the idea of corporations being that the venture could live on beyond the lifespans of normal people. Corporations really caught on as imperial trade ventures spread further and further afield, growing with the globalisation and taking us to the point today where these huge entities dominate national stock markets and their corporate footprint is everywhere. Most visibly seen in the products we buy and the logos we see all the time.
In terms of the relationship between governments, corporations, and the people, the view seems to be that the government is paternalistically representing the people and that corporations are off to the side regulated and taxed by the government, and people have the choice of whether or not to transact with them. In a way, they are almost considered to be a subset of the people, in the respect that many also own shares in the corporations, either directly or through their pooled investment schemes, like pensions. Also, people believe that the government is voted in by and represents the people, and the people only.
In the 2011 film, “In Time,” starring Justin Timberlake, people have a built-in microchip clock-type device on their arm to top up and spend credits with. The clock is constantly ticking down in real-time, too, just by living, and people are forced to commit crimes to steal time from other humans to survive. Overall, a rather dystopian future is presented, where people are always conscious of their need to earn time just to survive another day. It’s noticeable in this film, too, that extra credits are given out to favoured interests by the overlords running the system and deducted from others. A likely increased future feature of currency issuance, as technological advances continue.
The future may be about to change dramatically, with direct delivery of currency to the human body itself, via wifi and the new, much-heralded 5G mobile network. Time to introduce Patent WO2020060606A1, filed in June 2019 by Microsoft and published on 26 March 2020, while Corona events began to dominate the news. What follows is the official abstract from the google patents page.
“Human body activity associated with a task provided to a user may be used in a mining process of a cryptocurrency system. A server may provide a task to a device of a user which is communicatively coupled to the server. A sensor communicatively coupled to or comprised in the device of the user may sense body activity of the user. Body activity data may be generated based on the sensed body activity of the user. The cryptocurrency system communicatively coupled to the device of the user may verify if the body activity data satisfies one or more conditions set by the cryptocurrency system and award cryptocurrency to the user whose body activity data is verified.”
Now, as we’re moving into the future here, the conversation turns hypothetical – If the entities behind this Patent wished to wire up the human body to be able to function in this manner, how could they do it? How would they get people to agree to accept it?
It’s up to you to think about that but consider this. The person behind Microsoft, William Gates III, also runs a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Melinda being his wife), that pays out billions to projects of their choosing. Wikipedia may have more up to date figures by the time you read this, but a flavour is as follows:-
The following table lists the top receiving organizations to which the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has committed funding, between 2009 and 2015. The table only includes grants recorded in the Gates Foundation’s IATI publications.
You are invited to research for yourselves the organisations on this list. As a flavour, the single biggest contribution goes to GAVI – The Global Alliance for Vaccine and Immunization. The second-biggest contribution goes to the WHO – The World Health Organisation. The WHO is often presented as a league of nations-type organisation, but the second-biggest contributor behind the USA to the WHO is not a nation-state. It is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
That Nations are following World Health Organisation guidelines on Corona, including the push for vaccines, when it’s second-biggest contributor is linked to what would be a very, very profitable patent if the appropriate technology can be placed into the human body should be asked about by the government and media, on behalf of everyone. Wherever you live, you may have recently heard an interview with Bill Gates by your national media during these times. One day, a well-known BBC presenter conducted such an interview. Gates was presented as a Pandemic expert, despite having no formal qualifications of that kind. Then, GAVI was mentioned by the presenter, with no mention of how it is linked. Nor was there any mention of this cryptocurrency patent at all. In the USA, an interview between Ellen and Bill Gates on a similar vein was taken down from Facebook after receiving thousands of critical comments, many of them asking questions like those just mentioned. The internet was meant to lead to the sharing of more information and greater knowledge amongst the population, but it seems that investigative journalism is weakening. This is indeed not a criticism of Gates, nor Microsoft. Most of us use their products every single day. By choice. Gates himself would probably love to face genuine public inquisition to help prove that there is no conflict of interest.
It’s also impossible to ignore the biblical aspect of this patent number. WO2020 – New World Order 2020 and 060606 – 666. Either it’s a coincidence, someone is having a major joke, or a biblical prophecy is playing out in front of our eyes.
“And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” – Revelation 13:17
The World Economic Forum (WEF) was founded by the German Klaus Schwab in 1971 and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. You may know it most as the hosts of the yearly “Davos” conference, oft-reported on the media, where political and financial heavyweights meet to discuss pressing matters of the day. The truly global reach of this organisation is shown by a board of trustees that includes Al Gore, Mark Carney, and Jack Ma. It now openly refers to this period of uncertainty, illness, and death as ‘The Great Reset’ via their website. Articles it posts give some clues that business and life may not return to how it was before. The oft-quoted phrase of the era, “The New Normal,” which you may have heard many places, suggests big changes too.
In early 2020, a new virus hit the world. A virus so, so awful that nanny said we had to stay indoors. We couldn’t go near another person, go to work, school, visit a shop or travel anywhere. Life turned upside down. For millions, their livelihoods just stopped instantly. Unemployment rates flew up, and western governments especially introduced emergency payments to those now finding themselves out of work. Emergency payments that continue to the present day. In countries without the European levels of welfare, such as India, trains just stopped in their tracks. Leaving many workers who travel across the country to simply try and walk hundreds of miles home, with no financial means of support. For the luckier ones, offices worldwide closed, but they were allowed to continue working, albeit from home. It was a virus that also hammered stock markets across the world down by 40% or more.
If you feel you’ve heard the story before, then it may be because you watched the 2011 film ‘Contagion,’ in which a disease hit the world, killing thousands, stopping everything, and striking fear and distrust into everyone worldwide. This film had all the ingredients you might expect to find. The heroes, desperately trying to save lives and find a vaccine, like Kate Winslet. The villains, like the odd-toothed conspiracy theorist Alan Krumwiede, played by Jude Law, who gets his just desserts when he dies trying to prove the virus isn’t real. The film is quite clear on who is good and who is bad, in typical Hollywood style, and ends by showing how the virus began in a pig farm in China, started by bats. If that bit sounds really familiar, it’s because you may have heard it used in 2020 as a possible explanation of how Corona (Spanish, English Translation: Crown) began.
The gist of the film is certainly that only a vaccine is the solution, and in one week of August 2020, during travels across countries, the following line, from acquaintances and TV was heard, Ad Infinitum:-
“Life won’t get back to normal until we get a vaccine.”
So there we go, there’s a big illness, and the people are being primed to take what they are told is the remedy.
“We Should Be Happier To Have A Job Than To Have Savings”
– Christine Lagarde, 2019.
Thank you, Christine. Your quote is the main reason why “How to Invest in Gold and Silver” got revisited 13 years after the original publication. Gold had underperformed for many years after attaining an all-time high in 2012, and gold mining companies had declined massively. Meanwhile, stock markets were apparently flying along and hitting new highs daily. Commodity prices were now lower than ever, in many cases and there was doubt in the premise of that book still being valid. Perhaps the 2008-09 crisis and fallout really was over?
When Christine said that, though, it was time to wonder. For those who don’t know Christine Lagarde, she makes big decisions on finance at the ECB (European Central Bank). The ECB is the banking facet of the European Union, and she was appointed to lead it in 2019. It doesn’t seem to matter that she was convicted of a financial crime 4 years earlier, nor did she seem to suffer any penalty for the conviction. Christine attends many events where big-ticket items are discussed, but no agenda or minutes of meetings are made public – think Bilderbergs and the World Economic Forum, for example. Christine even has Hollywood links – she was interviewed in 2010 as part of the documentary “Inside Job,” helping explain how those awful banks played roulette with our mortgages, savings, and investments, and it was all their fault. Lone financial gunmen, acting alone.
In summary, Ms Lagarde is a big cheese – or fromage grande to use her own language. When she says something, you can believe it may not just be her own words and possibly comes from somewhere deeper.
So ask yourself now, what does this quote mean to you? Images of savings being destroyed and life being a treadmill of working to earn enough to survive? Working on this premise, but not knowing what was coming or how that would be achieved, it was hard to know what to do except ensuring you have some diversification, then watch and wait.
The irony of the Priestley play “An Inspector Calls” and the judgemental way in which welfare is issued or not issued to the needy recipient should not be lost on modern Britain, as the government now acts as a much larger version of Mrs Birling. Deciding, almost arbitrarily with an iron fist, on whether someone gets help or not. Again, media commentary exists in the form of the 2016 Ken Loach film “I, Daniel Blake,” where someone who loses their work begins a downward life spiral, with his benefits gradually cut for failing to abide by Nanny’s rules. Even when those failures were for valid reasons. A cautionary tale for anyone thinking Nanny cares about them.
After World War 2, it was no surprise the welfare state emerged and, with it, a whole load of new money distribution schemes. Setting the scene, there had just been a major war, and the people of the UK were weary. After all, what had they got out of it? There had to be something back in return for their sacrifices, didn’t there? That was what led to the ousting of Prime Minister Winston Churchill and the installation of a new Labour PM, Clement Atlee, in 1945.
“An Inspector Calls” is a 1945 play by J.B. Priestley, but based in Edwardian England, around 1910. There’s a poignant scene in which a poor commoner goes to the local poor council to ask for needed funds as she has lost her job and is pregnant. The unpleasant Mrs Birling, the wife of a well-to-do local industrialist, sits on the council and decides that this woman is undeserving of help, totally on her own personal whims. The woman dies later. Or does she? If you’ve not seen this play or film dramatisation, it is highly recommended. Priestley presented this scene to support the introduction of a more socialist regime in the UK. Espousing free universal healthcare, regardless of circumstances.
Once governments got you used to the concept of using just one currency in your everyday transactions and got you used to the trust that they were looking after your gold – they began loaning it out and selling it off, often without your knowledge or consent.
(Chart: source: Wikipedia By Tsange – CC BY-SA 4.0)
Looking at the chart, it’s easy to see the UK gold reserves have declined massively, especially in the 1960s – leading to the famous ‘Pound in your Pocket’ speech by Prime Minister Harold Wilson in 1967, trying to assuage voters that their pound was still worth a pound, as the value plunged against other currencies. A pound of what, Harold? In 1999, the UK decided to sell off over half the nations’ remaining gold reserves, some 400 tonnes. At the time, gold was at the end of a major 20-year bear market, and the price was at an all-time low, a price last seen in the 1970s. The Bank of England, the custodian of the countries’ gold reserves, insists that it was never consulted in the decision, and some leaks, in fact, suggest that many of their staff vigorously opposed the move. They claim that Her Majesty’s Treasury and them alone made the decision. At the time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a Mr. Gordon “Golden” Brown, who subsequently became Prime Minister.
Even worse, the huge gold sales and auctions were publicly announced well in advance, thus giving gold dealers the chance to prepare for the glut of gold that was about to be released onto the market, and force the price down still further as a result. The normal strategy is to keep intended government gold sales quiet, then simply conduct the sales on the open market, obtaining the best prices possible, then announce the results afterward.
Why might a government decide to sell off one of the main assets of its people at the lowest price possible? There were rumours and accusations that the gold was sold to prevent top Hedge Funds who had got it wrong gambling on the price of gold from going bust and destroying the worldwide economy, among others.
Regardless of the truth of the rumours, 1999-2002 has subsequently been proved to have been exactly the right time to start buying gold, not selling it; in fact, the value of the gold sold by the UK has risen by over ten billion dollars since that time. This period in gold price history is now referred to as ‘The Brown Bottom.’
